Order Petitioner (ex-Constable) was charge sheeted on 16.9.2001 on three counts: (I) Petitioner remained absent without any leave or information for 2726 days from 21.12.92 to 19.5.2000. (II) Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for 16 days from 29.9.2000 to 14.10.2000. (III) Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for 42 days from 3.1.2001 to 14.2.2001. 2. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. Sufficient opportunities were-provided to the petitioner. Having heard the petitioner and having considered all the material available before the Enquiry Officer, Enquiry Officer has found that unauthorized absence of the petitioner on three different occasions, as mentioned in the charge-sheet, stand proved. Having considered the petitioner's reply and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Superintendent of Police has passed impugned order dated 7.8.2002, dismissing the petitioner from the service. However, it is important to mention here that learned Superintendent of Police, in the impugned dismissal order, has also highlighted unauthorized absence of the petitioner on the previous occasions also. 3. Statutory Appeal and Revision were also dismissed by the authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner -has vehemently argued that as per Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, previous record of 'service which has not been included in the charge of the proceeding should not be taken into account while imposing the major punishment of dismissal. He has further argued that learned Superintendent of Police has mentioned, in his impugned order of dismissal, previous unauthorized absence of the petitioner, which is in violation of Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, because of past service record, Superintendent of Police has made up his mind to pass the dismissal order. 5. Undisputedly, all the three charges stand proved against the petitioner. Even if previous absence of the petitioner for different previous occasions, which are not included in the charge-sheet, are ignored, even then, unauthorized absence of 2726 days justifies dismissal from the service. 6. In the firm opinion of this Court, a police force should not tolerate long standing unauthorized absence of the constable and it was rightly not tolerated by the authorities and petitioner's dismissal seems to be totally justified. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the last, has argued that this Court may consider converting the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement, in view of long standing service of the petitioner. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the last, has argued that this Court may consider converting the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement, in view of long standing service of the petitioner. 8. Suggestion made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the petitioner remained absent from his duty for long 2726 days and that period of absence should not indirectly be permitted to be counted for the purpose of fixation of pension, therefore, order of compulsory retirement, in the facts and circumstances, seems to be totally unjustified and punishment of dismissal is totally justified. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.